Canadians scoring highly on the LSAT do not necessarily wish to go to Toronto. Canadian schools tend to be more regional as a whole than top US law schools. I did not even consider applying to law school in Toronto, for example. (I did not apply to any Canadian schols, but if I had, it would have been to UVic and UBC.)

I would also believe that Canadians scoring highly on the LSAT are more likely to attend top American law schools, further reducing the pool of 170+ applicants to schools like Toronto.

I doubt assertions that Canadians as a whole are not as good at standardized tests as Americans, merely due to the lack of an SAT or ACT to enter into undergrad.

Can I ask why you want to go to school in the U.S.? Are you planning to practice there and if so how are you going to deal with the immigration issue?

Actually, yes, it probably is. Canadian schools are pretty regional. UT or McGill can get you a job in New York City, but the oppurtunities they offer aren't as great as a T10 US school, which a 170+ gets you into. There really isn't anoter explanation for why UT has lower LSAT scores. On a whole, given Canada's better education system, one would expect Canadians get average higher scores.

Did you read the thread? I guess Canadian schools are "regional" if you consider all of Canada a "region." We don't have standardized testing here. We haven't been prepped from grade nine for the SATs. There is a much smaller pool of applicants leading to less people at the top to fill the class.

I agree with your explanation. But if you analyze it by the structure of the argument presented, then I disagree. In order to make a Valid argument, the evidence must support the conclusion. In this example, the evidence specifically states that "The only way to sell copies of them is to make the potential buyers believe they need to adopt the most recent system.", then isn't it also valid to conclude "This is the only motive"

But it does not say that the only way to make buyers believe they need the system is to make frequent changes to the classification system. There could be other ways...

If you want to practice in Canada go to a canadian school. If you want to practice in the U.S. go to an american school. Comparing them on "flexibility" is ridiculous. You can't just walk into canada with a JD and take the bar exam. It doesn't work like that. You have to do at least a year at a canadian school anyway and a year of articling. Not too mention the host of immigration issues you have to go through if you want to spend any amount of time in either country.

I don't know about those bar passage numbers - for one thing UofT is the only school in canada that gives a JD and not an LLB. So I would assume the numbers are based mostly on American non-ABA schools. Anyway you are probably right about advancement in new york but that seems to be changing. There has been a huge increase in canadian students going to new york and with that increased presence I wouldn't doubt there will be more canadian educated partners in new york.

Whatever the case its freaking retarded to rank the degrees on "flexibility" they both have massive restrictions why anybody would go to school in a different jurisdiction than where they want to make a career i have no idea.

I saw a girl doing this when I sat and I know others saw her doing it as well. I'm surprised nobody ratted on her. I don't see the point. Get to figure out what the experimental section is maybe? Compared to the massive risk of getting caught and having your law school dreams basically shot down the tube, seems like a pretty stupid thing to do.